>>Consistent what? Would you mind restating, in 25 words or less, just what Kerry's position on Iraq was during the 2004 campaign? The words "I have a plan" come to mind, and the vague shape of a pretzel, but I couldn't tell you any more.<<
Nadine -
You must have formed your view of Kerry's position on the war by listening to his critics paraphrase and twist it.
He voted to authorize the President to use force. This vote was later characterized by the Right as having been a vote "for the war". But before that vote was taken, the President was characterizing it quite differently. He was taking great pains to explain that he needed to negotiate from a position of strength, and thus he needed this authorization, but that he was only going to go to war as a last resort, when all else had failed. It was not a vote "for the war" but a vote to give the President the bargaining chip he said he needed.
Then Bush plunged headlong into the war after trying to bully and bullshit every county in the U.N. into going along with him, and many of the same allies who had immediately stood up and volunteered to send troops to Afghanistan said, "Wait a minute. This case for war is full of holes." A lot of people didn't seem to notice that all the Bush administration was doing was "making a case for war", which doesn't jibe at all with the idea of going to war only as a last resort.
Bush kept insisting he had a grand coalition (5 troops from Palau, for God's sake), and basically told the U.N. inspectors to clear out so we could start bombing, even though the inspectors really thought they were getting somewhere and wanted more time.
And after Bush did all that, and then when it became obvious that the post-invasion plan wasn't even half baked, Kerry said, "Hey, the guy decided to go it alone after telling us war was a last resort, and he's bungled the occupation, and we need to make a change at the top so we can put the coalition we had in Afghanistan back together." OK, I'll admit he didn't say it that plainly, but that's basically what he said.
So where's the inconsistency? It was in the twisted paraphrasing the Right did when they talked about Kerry's position. It was never in the position itself.
>>You mean that Republicans who supported them also worked with Karl Rove? Well, quelle surprise. Do you suppose that George Soros, who bankrolled Moveon.org, also spoke to the Kerry campaign once or twice? What is this supposed to prove? Did you really expect the Swiftvets to be bankrolled by Democrats? The more salient fact is that the Swiftvets were not imposters, they were really Kerry's fellow officers, men with names, property, and careers outside of politics. These were not paid political activists. As I have said, that was the beauty part of the situation - Karl Rove didn't have to hire them. They were volunteers.<<
What does MoveOn.org have to do with it? Did they write a book smearing somebody? Did they ever pretend to be anything besides political activists?
So the Swiftboat Vets were volunteers? They didn't make any money or curry any political favor from their actions? Well I'm not sure how you know that, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. But what I want to know is this: How exactly do you suppose it came about that this disparate group of men who had such great careers and busy lives got together to put their names on a ghost-written book in the first place? Was it just happenstance? Did a few guys who hadn't actually worked directly with Kerry and had no first-hand knowledge of his service just happen to meet up at a Boy Scout Jamboree and get to talking? And did one of them say, "Hey, that Kerry sure is a rotten S.O.B. Let's get a book out and call him a liar." Sure. That's just plausible as heck.
I think a much more plausible explanation is that Karl Rove, who has made a career for himself by turning opposing candidates' greatest strengths into liabilities, cooked up the scheme, made a few phone calls, got some people to put up a bunch of money to bankroll the project, and got the ball rolling. To me, knowing some of Rove's history, that's a simple and plausible explanation.
But you know what? I'm sick of talking about this. When I think about the things Karl Rove has done (including but not limited to his grotesque smear of McCain in the 2000 primaries) I get physically ill, and it's just not worth getting into all of it again.
- Allen
PS: I did go on, don't I? Sorry. But I'm at least partially right, you know. |
